mwmzmm 



m%?> 



vvwyyyv v 



^MMWMMjMmt 



vW^Vvw 



Wi^YSi 






:^;wwi^v-vv 



lis iSip^^P^^^^ 



v -jV- ■ vvV; 



VW' 



/^W ©xM^V 



88*0?w 



^MWy 



■;;,,^:--^^H«mliili l lJiiMMy/vw'v\ vu vw^ y 



vgwy 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS, I 

-j j 

f ^4f ,O.A.U^ I 

! ■ # 

| UNITED STATES OP AMERICA. J 



Vvv'Tv 






4 * Shi t-A 



/v^^.y^ 



M/^.-A. 












M5#W 



VVVV 



mmm^wmmmm 



vygvvvvv 



l«i 



mM^^cr'.m 



HUHfg 



^®Pi 



'JyW- 



v*v^vwvv WV¥ : v ^^ 









mmmm 



PWSWii 









wwv 






^mmM 



mm, v vv 



?«*«:» 



iMlSiii 






wvvv^ 



^^.^^gvw^y^. ^^v ; 






Mm 



mm 



VvVWv 



*«» 






wv-wvoc 









%^4,> 



iw»: 



;\JVJV 






mmmm,^^ 



WWVO.-AV. 



^^vJ43ftKi 



•WWUWW 



THE 



CHOLERA IN CINCINNATI 



OR A 



CONNECTED VIEW 



OF THE 



CONTROVERSY 



BETWEEN THE 



HOMEOPATHIST8 AND THE METHODIST EXPOSITOR 



ALSO, 



*f - 



A REVIEW 



OF THE REPORT READ BEFORE THE HOMEOPATHIC ASSOCIATION. 



BY S. A. LATTA, M. D. 



3 CINCINNATI 
MORGAN k OVEREND, PRINTERS. 

1850. 




HOMEOPATHIC THEORY, 



"Similia similibus curantur" — Like cures like. 



Hahnemann. 



HOMEOPATHY VS. THE EXPOSITOR. 



INTRODUCTION. 

It is proper that the reader should be informed, in advance, 
of the causes which led to the controversy hereafter given in 
detail, and of the motives which prompted the editor of the Ex- 
positor to enter the arena of controversy with the Homeopathists. 
In May, 1849, soon after the appearance of the Epidemic Cholera, 
in this city, the Homeopathic, Eclectic, Indian, and Negro Doc- 
tors, with other irregular practitioners, put forth, through the sec- 
ular press, reports so extravagant, of success in the cure of cholera, 
that the regular profession were completely disgusted, and as a 
consequence, few, if any, could be found willing to report as de- 
sired by the board of health. They readily perceived that it would 
be impossible to retain a reputation for truthfulness, what- 
ever might be their success in practice, and keep pace with the 
mongrel tribes of irregulars, who, indeed, were then already too 
far in advance to be overtaken, even though the dictates of con- 
science had been disregarded. The strictly scrupulous in the reg- 
ular profession were deterred by the first consideration ; while 
others, if any there were, w r hose conscience did not interpose a 
bar, were, doubtless, deterred by the second, that of utter despair 
of ever overtaking the gentlemen above alluded to, who had al- 
ready astonished the world with their reported success. In unob- 
trusive silence, the members of the regular profession pursued 
the even tenor of their w T ay, contending by day and night with 
the angel of death, as he silently struck among the masses in the 
street, or in the family circle of the mansion, the cottage, the gar- 
ret, or the cellar. Two months of alarm and terror the most ap- 
palling had come and gone, and still no voice was heard through 
the public journals, from all the ranks of the regulars. Mean- 
while the irregulars of every grade and complexion were aston- 
ishing the community with new and startling reports of success. 

The editor of the Expositor had seen, with disgust, the move- 
ments of these brave knights, and heard the successive blasts of 



— 4 — 

their trumpets which appeared to wax louder and louder as the 
invading pestilence retired. Forbearance was thought to have 
ceased to be a virtue, and truth seemed to demand a response 
which should at least fix the attention of community upon the 
alledged facts in their report. 

In doing this, he was aware that many would be offended, and 
that combinations would probably be formed for defense, if not 
for defamation and slander ; but duty called, and he was disposed 
to risk the consequences, rather than forfeit the answer of a good 
conscience and the claims of manly independence, which should 
ever characterize those having the editorial control of the press. 

The duty he had to perform was one of a delicate character. 
The people were being misled with respect to matters of vital 
importance to themselves, by reports the most extravagant in their 
details. The issues involved w^ere more than the loss of fortune ; 
they were the issues of life and death. Many were being induced, 
by these exaggerated reports, to rely upon remedies for the cure 
of cholera, which were, in his judgment, wholly impotent, and 
as a consequence, many valuable lives would be lost. What 
could he do better than question the truth of their reports, for, 
obviously, they were untrue. And how could he keep silent, with 
facts like these before his eyes ? He resolved he would not, and 
hence he ventured to the rescue of truth, irrespective of conse- 
quences. 

The first bulletin to which he invited the attention of the public, 
was that of Drs. Pulte & Ehrmann, issued August 11th, 1849. 
The privilege having been granted, these gentlemen replied in 
self-defense through the medium of the paper of which he was 
editor, and were answered, and there it was thought the matter 
would end. But soon the friends of Homeopathy, assembled in 
obedience to public call, formed an association for defense, and 
appointed Messrs. Taft, Barrett, Sawyer, Carlisle, and Crawford, 
a committee to reply to the Expositor; who put forth their views 
in the form of an octavo pamphlet of forty-eight pages, attacking 
alike fiercely the facts and reasoning of the Expositor. The 
talents, learning, and gentlemanly bearing of the committee, en- 
title their report to a candid and careful review, especially with 
respect to the facts involving the veracity of the parties between 
whom they essay to decide. No member of the committee, it is 
believed, makes any pretensions to a knowledge of medical sci- 
ence, nor yet to a critical knowledge of the system of Homeopa- 
thy itself, — but still that Mr. Taft is learned in the legal profes- 



— 5 



sion, that Mr. Barrett is distinguished as a Swedenborgian 
divine, and that the other gentlemen of the committee are 
entitled, as citizens, to high consideration, no dne will doubt. 
And although he is compelled to question their ability to decide 
the medical questions at issue, or even to discuss them understan- 
dingly, he wishes it distinctly understood, in advance, that he has 
no desire to detract from their claims to confidence in any other 
respect. He will not question their veracity, although they are 
obviously at fault in the statement of facts, resulting from an 
ex parte hearing of the case. And now that it is deemed inex- 
pedient to refer to the subject again in the paper of which he 
has charge, he has resolved upon the issue of a pamphlet, which 
will contain a connected view of the controversy, as conducted 
in the Expositor, and a review of the Homeopathic report, to 
which allusion has just been made; and with what success he 
has met the issue, the reader must judge after perusing the fol- 
lowing pages. 



CONNECTED VIEW OF THE CONTROVERSY- 



BULLETIN OF DKS. PULTE AND EHRMANN. 

The above named gentlemen, Homeopathic physicians of this 
city, issued in the Gazette and other political journals, August 11, 
1849, the following as the result of their practice for the cure of 
Cholera : 

"We have treated," say Drs. Pulte and Ehrmann, "from the 1st May to the 1st 
August, instant, eleven hundred and sixteen cholora patients, of which five hundred 
and thirty-eight exhibited the symptoms of vomiting, diarrhea, and cramps, including 
a great many, from sixty to seventy, in deep state of collapse — the balance, five hun- 
dred and seventy-eight, had the symptoms of vomiting and rice-water discharges, and 
were prevented from running into a higher stage of the disease by early applications 
of the proper medicines. 

"Of the collapsed cases, a great many were cured, the success depending upon the 
medicines given in the early stages. In those improperly treated, by opiates particu- 
larly, our success was difficult ; but in cases where the patient was treated, at first, by 
camphor alone, or where he went immediately into collapse, after being attacked, the 
result was very favorable. 

" Of the eleven hundred and sixteen cholera patient3, four hundred and seventy- 
four were Americans, and six hundred and forty-two Germans, including a few Irish ; 



— 6 — 

the mortality of the whole number was thirty-five, of which two were Americans and 
thirty-three Germans. Of the latter not one half should have died, but from their 
carelessness of diet, and want of knowledge of the insidious character of this dis- 
ease. We accounted among those who died, all which we had attended ourselves, even 
if we were called at too late a time to be of real use. 

" Besides the above eleven hundred and sixteen cholera patients, we treated during 
the same time, thirteen hundred and fifty cases of a mixed character, mostly diarrheas 
with rumbling in the bowels (cholerina), and toward the close of the epidemic, a great 
number of dysenteries, some of which were of a very malignant character (we lost 
none of them however), also a good many nervous fever with typhoid tendency. 

" To verify the above statement, we have made out a complete list of all the chol- 
era cases, with names and dates, for reference at any time when required. 

" The principal remedy used in the beginning of cholera, was camphora, the tincture 
of which was prepared in the proportion of one part of the gum to six parts of alco- 
hol, as advised by Hahnemann himself, who first recommended this remedy in 1829. 
The dose in which it was applied was equal to one or two drops every five minutes, 
for one or one and a half hour, until profuse perspiration ensued. During this time, 
the patient had to be well covered, and in most cases the camphor alone produced a 
complete cure without the help of any other remedies." 



EXPOSITOR'S NOTICE OF PULTE AND EHRMANN'S REPORT. 

In noticing the preceding bulletin of Drs. Pnlte and Ehrmann, 
the editor of the Expositor urged, 

1. That it was undignified and unprofessional to appear in 
the public prints in praise of themselves, as in the report then un- 
der consideration. He alledged that it was a method adopted by 
nostrum sellers and quacks, and that it had always been looked 
upon with contempt by the regular profession. 

2. He maintained that, according to their own showing, they 
had adopted Allopathic rather than Homeopathic treatment, ad- 
ministering the strongest tincture of camphor, in doses of one or 
two drops every five minutes. And in many instances he affirmed 
that from three to five drops were administered every three min- 
utes, which was equal to fifteen or twenty grains of camphor ev- 
ery hour. This, he contended, was an abandonment of every 
principle of Homeopathy. The following are his remarks in ex~ 
tenso : 

" ' Similia } similibus, curantur ;' that which will produce symptoms analogous to the 
disease, will cure it, is the great fundamental principle upon which the system is foun- 
ded. Had they acted in harmony with this, they would have given to their cholera 
patients something which would have produced purging and vomiting, such as ipecac, 
tartar emetic, etc. But instead of this, we find them employing camphor, and that, 
too, in larger doses than it is administered by most of their allopathic neighbors ; and 
who ever heard that camphor was emetic and cathartic. 

" The infinitessimal doses, as well as the fundamental principle, according to the show- 
ing of Drs. Pulte and Ehrmann, have been abandoned, and yet they ascribe their cures* 



to Homeopathy; but we doubt if they succeed in gulling the intelligent in community 
much longer by a system of quackery so palpably absurd — so grossly immoral. We 
have no doubt that camphor, administered in ten or twenty grain doses, would secure 
i a reasonable share of success, whether employed by homeopathic or allopathic practi- 
I tioners. It is known to community, that regular physicians have always relied upon 
( the use of camphor in this disease to a great extent, in much smaller doses than those 
prescribed by the Homeopathists; and hence, if the latter have been successful, it is ob- 
viously (if their own statements can be relied upon) by the use of allopathic remedies, 
and not by infinitessimal doses of medicines, as they would have it understood. These 
gentlemen seem to have abandoned Hahnemann's theory, that " the hair of the dog 
would cure the bite." But is it not grossly immoral to practice such a deception upon 
community ? We have long believed that homeopathic doctors were practicing Allo- 
pathy in disguise — employing the " samsons" of the system, such as calomel, corrosive 
sublimate, arsenic, camphor, belladona, pulsatilla, and many other powerful articles, in 
full doses — but now we have proof which sets the question forever at rest. 

" It is also notorious, that during the progress of the cholera, the Homeopathists have 
been equally unfortunate with the regulars, in producing salivation, and of this we 
shall furnish proof whenever demanded. Calomel, it may be, was not the general agent 
employed : corrosive sublimate being a more powerful article, and capable of solution, 
was preferred ; and this we have found at the bedside of the sick more than once during 
the prevalence of the epidemic in this city. 

"Heretofore we have been disposed to pity rather than censure some of those engaged 
in the practice of Homeopathy, believing them the dupes of a theory the most ridicu- 
lously absurd ; but to our surprise and mortification, we find that we, rather than they, 
were duped by false pretensions. For instead of giving infinitessimal doses of medi- 
cine, as we supposed, which would produce the disease for which they were prescribed, 
we find them adopting the very same treatment employed by the regular profession. 
In this, we confess, we have been prodigiously gulled by these pretenders, and most 
cheerfully award to them a degree of cunning more than equal to the moral of the 
transaction. 

" Second. We object to the report of Drs. Pulte and Ehrmann, because it is immoral 
in its statement of facts. It is affirmed that they have treated four hundred and sev- 
enty-four cases of cholera among Americans since the first of May, and that but two 
out of the whole number have died. If this were true, as above remarked, the glory 
would not redound to Homeopathy, as these gentlemen would have it, but to Allopathy 
— to regular remedies, in full doses, as they themselves have made manifest in the re- 
port now under consideration. But tflas for both, the report is not true. 

" We know not what number of cases they had ; but that more have died than 
they have reported, is absolutely certain. In the range of our own observation and 
acquaintance, not less than nine, instead of two, Americans are said to have died in 
their hands, which is probably not the one tenth of the whole number they have lost. 
In making this statement, we speak advisedly, in that these cases have been reported to 
us by responsible individuals, giving the names and residences of the Americans who 
were lost in their hands, whose names and residences will be given, if this statement 
should be contradicted by the parties concerned. 

" Now, if these homeopathic doctors are so inaccurate in their reports of cures, what 
reliance can be placed upon their statements in any given case in which their interests 
are involved ? Who can believe their representations either with respect to their mode 
of treatment or their success ? 

"We can scarcely conceive of a higher degree of immorality than that of deceiving 
community, with respect to the best means of preserving health and life, and yet this 
seems to have been the part acted by these homeopathic doctors. 
"We regret exceedingly that we are called upon to make an expose like this, but, as a 



public journalist, we feel that we could not do otherwise, without a criminal neglect of 
duty. For if nine cases have come within the range of our own observation, and those 
with whom we are associated, it is fair to conclude that the mortality attending the 
practice of these gentlemen is ten if not twenty times as great as they have reported it. 
But as we are not personally cognizant of all the facts stated, and as it is possible that 
some mistakes may have been made by our reporters, we shall most cheerfully permit 
the said Drs. Pulte and Ehrmann to be heard in self-defense in our columns, with re^ 
spect to any fact stated in this article. 

" Meanwhile we shall expect to learn more as to the results of their practice, both as 
it regards Americans and Germans, which it may not be necessary to publish should our 
present statement not be contradicted. But in the event of contradiction, either directly 
or indirectly, we assure all concerned that the names and residences of those to whom 
we have alluded, as having died under their treatment, will be forthcoming, with the 
names and residences of all others who may be reported hereafter. 

" Thus far the regular profession have kept silent ; but really this last attempt of the 
Homeopathists and others, to make them responsible for the thousands who have died 
during the epidemic, is beyond endurance. 

" We have reported above, nine American patients who have perished in their 
hands, on what we conceive to be reliable authority, while, in fact, we have no doubt 
ninety-nine Americans and more have fallen victims to the cupidity of these distin- 
guished Homeopathists; while hundreds, if not thousands, of Germans, have perished, 
by relying upon two and a half, and five dollar boxes of cholera preventives, which 
these gentlemen induced them to believe would be all that was needed to save them from 
its ravages." 



DRS. PULTE AND EHRMANN'S REPLY TO THE EXPOSITOR. 

The following reply of the gentlemen above named was pub- 
lished in the Expositor " verbatim et literatim " — and hence the 
reader must recollect that the orthography, etymology, syntax, 
and prosody, are their own. In view of some of their remarks 
and insinuations respecting the literary attainments of the editor, 
he did not feel at liberty to make any corrections. 

Rev. S. A. Latta 

Doctor of allopathic medicine and 
Author of " the trumpets." Sir, 

Several times during the summer you have sent forth volleys of wordy musketry in 
your Expositor against Homoeopathia and its votaries & adherents, calling them ' pell 
mell ' dupes and quaks. Although this gratuitous offering of your zeal and genius was 
of no use in the desperate cause of Allopathia, as the public seems not to have taken 
special notice of it, yet it must have drawn the attention of the leading spirits in Allo- 
pathia on you and your abilities, as it is evident from the tone of your latest production 
and the manner of its distribution (it was thrown into every house almost in form of 
extras), that you are the chosen champion of Allopathia in her fearful struggle against 
the right of the people, to chose their own physicians, even to chose you, if they 
please. It must have been one of your proudest days on which you was thus elevated 
to the rank of Captain in the army of the regulars, which you had joined as an hum- 
ble volunteer after having fought for years on your medical career single handed with 
no associate but the own high reputation for yourself. Thus far you have attained one 



object of your eventful life, that of not to be considered a quack in medicine by your 
allopathic brethern, but whether you have succeeded as well in reeching the two other 
points of your ambition, that of avoiding the odium of quackery in religion and liter- 
ary attainments, awaits further solution, as the specimen in hand does not seem to 
prognosticate favorably for the attainement of both of your objects. 
With the above remarks we wanted to indicate the state of our own feelings by read- 
ing your article and probably would have ceased to notice it any farther, if it had not 
been for it containing some specific charges against us personally which compelled us 
for the sake of the community at large and the friends of homoeopathy especially to 
answer and explain them. 

In the confused manner in which you have thrown the different charges against us 
together, it is impossible to follow you — we prefer to first arrange logically (what you 
should have done yourself, if such a training of the mind, as logic gives, was known 
to you) and then answer them accordingly. First you complain of our acting immor- 
ally and not with the propriety of professional gentlemen, by publishing the result of 
our practice in the late Cholera Epidemic. 

You yourself did not consider this to be a very serious charge against us, or else you 
would have furnished your readers a sufficient amount of conclusive evidence in its 
support. — for instance you should have shown that we were actually according to the 
idea of the Allopathic faculty professional gentlemen, by which fact you might have 
made the public believe, that we were guilty of a breach of propriety by publishing 
ourselves our reports after the Cholera had subsided, although one, say a professional 
gentleman, might safely allow himself to be published and puffed at a great rate by an- 
other person, for instance if he is the Editor of a paper, by his co editor and be even 
allowed without any breach of propriety, to keep such an uncalled for puff as a stand- 
ing advertisement for several weeks, say in such paper as the Expositor is. You 
should have further shown to an evidence, that our reports were althagether vol- 
unteered and not called for (as they really were) at the urgent desire of some of the 
public, who seemed to feel an interest in knowing the results of the homoeopathic 
treatment of the] cholera — in not bringing this important argument in your favor for- 
ward, you had the Charity of a Christian in yourself all for yourself. You thaught 
the concealment of the fact that we, in giving our reports, only were responding to a 
public call made on us, would be sufficient, particularly in an article of yours, to make 
the public forget its existence. In this you will certainly find yourself mistaken. 
Finally you should have given sufficient reasons for your attack on our reports, the 
refutation of which was not necessary according to your representation of their recep- 
tion by the public, which as you say, discredited them almost althagether. Now there 
was no necessity for you to kill over again, what as you say was already killed. You 
will perceive at once the silliness of your attitude in this affair by your own ex- 
pressions. 

Secondly, you charge us with having cured our patients allopathically in disguise 
deceiving in this way the public, and what is of still more importance and mortifica- 
tion, deceiving you, Dr. Latta. Now this would be a severe charge against us, particu- 
larly the last part of it, where you are yourselves so delicately touched in it. To 
deceive the public is immoral enough, but to play a trick upon your Argus eyes, that 
is not merely immoral, but really cunning, and you never knew anything about it (of 
course, you had had previoussuspicions!) until now, but now all the faculty knows it, and 
the matter is set forever at rest. Yes, now it is known to the faculty, that camphor is the 
real specific in cholera, which they never knew or dreamed of before — now they want 
to claim a remedy as their own, which Hahnemann had twenty years before made 
known to the world to be given in precise the dose in which we, and every Homoeopa- 
thist have given it in cholera. But you ( , are too late," Dr. Latta. Nobody, who 
knows anything about the question before us, will believe you, particularly not upon your 



— 10 — 

own testimony. Don't deceive yourself as to the standard of your own knowledge. 
Of your allopathic attainments, we will and must not judge ; of Homoeopathia, how- 
ever, we declare unhesitatingly, you do not understand the A. B: C, Our homoeopathic 
laymen ecclipse you in this branch of knowledge most effectually, if we may judge 
from the display in your article of your gross ignorance of all what pertains to the ho- 
moeopathic system. Here we might have wished for you to have known that old pro- 
verb : Si tarnisses, philosophus mansisses, if you had been silent, you might have 
continued to make people believe you knew something about homoeopathy ; but now, 
what a pity ! 

As regards that grand discovery you made at the bedside, finding there corrosive subli- 
mate which we had given in solution, we await in perfect silence, but with the firm 
expectation the full prove of such a fact as you have offered to do when called for and 
for every ones gratification the disclosure of your modus operandi, how you could 
find out the true nature of our corrosive sublimate. That will astonish the chemists ! 
Now the 3d charge, and as this is the severest of all, you will allow us to be brief 
in its reply. You state confidently that we have lost nine Americans, instead of two, 
reported by us, in the late epidemic. Now as we and others are curious, to know more 
about this affair, you will oblige yourself and us in giving us the names of these per- 
sons, in as much as we again repeat, that we have only lost two Americans, which can be 
fairly and justly charged to our account. In your further remarks upon this subject 
where you try to extend your charity in burdening us with the loss of Ten times nine 
Americans, you should have spared yourself the flight of imagination to such a height, 
which always incurs the danger of a fall — You had better prove first the nine, which 
you promised to do. 

As regards the loss of the thousands among the Germans, We would charitably recom- 
mend you further information, particularly at the board of health, where the bills paid 
to the several doctors, will show you the amount of work which was done and by 
whom it was done ; you will find it 99-100 to be allopathic. In conclusion we 
would advise you and your allopathic brethern to give reports in full to the public of all 
cases treated, in order to escape the heavy charge of the 6 thousands of the victims of 
Cholera which up to this time must tarnish the heretofore so unblemished escutcheon 
of Allopathy. But be candid. 

J. H. Pulte. 

B. Ehrmann. 



COMMENTS UPON PULTE AND EHRMANN'S REPLY. 

The editor of the Expositor, in alluding to the reply of the gen- 
tlemen above named, says : 

" In noticing the above, we are somewhat at a loss to know where to begin. It is a 
confused tissue of insinuations, in very bad English, evincing alike great ignorance of 
letters, and of science. In our reply we shall be brief, not because it is the " most im- 
portant, or hardest of all," as Drs. Pulte and Ehrmann have said, toward the close of 
their article, but, because it is of but little importance. A few facts only will be noticed . 

" First. We have never intimated that the people should not be allowed to choose 
their own physicians, but have simply labored to shield them from the pernicious influ- 
ence of empiricism, by exposing the intrigues of quacks, who annoy the public ear, by 
sounding their own trumpets at the corners of the street, upon the housetops, and 
through the medium of the press. 



— 11 — 

" Second. We have never permitted any puff of ourself " to be kept as a standing 
advertisement, for several weeks in such a paper as the Expositor is," as these gentle- 
men have affirmed. The notice taken of our success in practice by our co-editor was 
without our knowledge, as he himself will testify ; nor was it kept standing a solitary 
week. In this we have another evidence of a want of truthfulness in the statements of 
these gentlemen. 

"Thus far, the article is no defense of either their practice, or their reports. They 
do not deny that they have treated their patients allopathically, but contend that 
Hahnemann administered camphor twenty years ago, just as they have administered it 
during the prevalence of the epidemic. Now, suppose this were even true, would it 
not convict Hahnemann of treason against the system which he himself originated; for 
no one, we are sure, will assume that camphor is emetic or cathartic; nor will it be 
contended, we presume, that camphor, administered in ten or twenty grain doses per 
hour, is in harmony with their pretensions to infinitessimal dosing. From this dilem- 
ma these gentlemen have not attempted to escape. They do not deny that they are in 
the habit of using the most dangerous articles in the whole list of regular remedies. 
They even admit that they employ corrosive sublimate, but think it would be impos- 
sible to detect it in solution. This they say ' would astonish the chemists,' by which 
we understand them to affirm, that chemists are ignorant of any method by which to 
detect this article. Presuming that all are as destitute of chemical knowledge as them- 
selves, they call for our 'modus operandi' for detecting it. Of a truth, it is hard to 
believe that any one in this enlightened country would be so totally ignorant of chem- 
ical science; but it seems it is so with some who profess to have studied the medical 
profession, and hence we will give a 'modus operandi' by which it may be detected, 
and that, too, without 'astonishing the chemists.'' 

" Any of the carbonates of the fixed alkalies, will produce a precipitate of a yellow 
color, when applied to a solution of corrosive sublimate. Lime water occasions a deep 
yellow precipitate. Ammonia throws down a white precipitate. These, with perhaps 
twenty other tests, may be employed to detect the presence of corrosive sublimate; 
and yet we are told, by these professedly learned medical reformers, who constitute the 
head and front of homeopathy in this country, that it would 'astonish the chemists ' if 
any ' modus operandi' should be discovered for its detection. Njw, if these lions of 
the profession be thus ignorant, what must be the condition of their subalterns, who 
have to carry their books through the streets, and to the bedside, to enable them to 
prescribe? Can the people be safe in such hands? or can any one practice, without 
danger to his patient, who is so totally ignorant of the incompatibles of an agent so 
dangerous as that of corrosive sublimate ? If so, then may these homeopathists be 
employed. 

" What think you, gentle reader, would be the impression produced upon a court, 
if these gentlemen, when called to testify in a case of poisoning by corrosive subli- 
mate, should say that it would astonish the chemists were any one to pretend that it 
could be detected? We vouch for it, there would be laughter long and loud; the 
court themselves would be compelled to laugh at the top of their voices. Such con- 
summate ignorance in those who pretend that they have studied the regular system of 
medicine, and that they are graduates of a regular institution, would almost tickle the 
heart of a stone. And yet there are those in community, who claim to be intelligent, 
who have lauded them for their high literary and scientific attainments. It has been 
affirmed a thousand and one times, that they have regular diplomas, and yet they are 
ignorant of the fact, that corrosive sublimate, which they are in the habit of employing, 
may be chemically tested. This is learning with a vengeance. Can folly be greater 
than this, or can ignorance be made more conspicuous? Of what avail are diplomas to 
pretenders like these? And what must community think, when they are informed 
that they have thus publicly exposed their ignorance of the profession ? Can intelli- 



gent people be surprised that the regular profession have been so disgusted with the 
duplicity of those who have turned aside in pursuit of a phantom, thus presented to 
their imagination by those who so mercilessly murder the king's English, and who, 
above all, are in total darkness with respect to the simplest tests in chemical science ? 
We confess we have not language to express the contempt we feel for intelligence like 
this. If any should think us severe, let them consult some work upon chemistry, and 
they will have to admit that our comments are just. 

"Now, if this communication from Doctors Pulte and Ehrmann is a fair specimen of 
their high literary and scientific attainments, of which so much has been said by some 
of the zealous advocates of homeopathy in this city, then, indeed, will the intelligent 
portion of those who have heretofore employed them, be constrained to acknowledge 
that they have been grossly deceived. 

" In this long article of theirs, what have they said in defense of either their practice 
or of their bulletin ? In their report of cholera cases, which appeared in our issue of 
August 25, they say : 'We counted among those who died, all which we had attended 
ourselves, even if we were called at too late a time to be of real use.'' In that bulletin, but 
two Americans were represented as having died. But as nine cases had been reported 
to us, we thought it our duty to expose the immorality, promising at the same time to 
give the names and residences of those who had died in their hands, should it be 
requested. 

"But in their reply to us, they take quite different ground. They now say, they 
' have only lost two Americans, which can be fairly and justly charged to their 
account.' This is changing the issue very materially; but we hold them to the original 
statement, that but 'two Americans had died,' counting all they had attended, 'even 
when they were called too late to be of real use,' for such was the language of their 
bulletin of August 11. 

"With these remarks, we submit the following list of American cases of cholera, 
which have proved fatal in the hands of Doctors Pulte and Ehrmann, for proof of 
which we have the most responsible names. We know not how fairly aad justly they 
may be charged to their account, but it is certain, we think, that they attended them at 
the time of their death. 

"First. Mr. Chidsey's child, Ninth street, west of the Old Asylum. 

11 Second. Mrs. Trimble, Center street, between Vine and Race. 

" Third. A child of Mrs. Hudson, Center street, between Vine and Race. 

11 Fourth. Mrs. Reynolds, Front street, near Washington Brewery. 

" Fifth. Mrs. Martin, Front street, between Ludlow and Lawrence. 

"Sixth. Mrs. Roberts, Harrison street, east of Broadway. 

''Seventh, Mrs. Ingalsbe, Race street, between Seventh and Eighth. 

"Eighth. Nancy Hukill, Third street, between Western Row and John. 

" Ninth. Mr. Richardson's child, at Mr. Conklin's, Fourth street. 

" The above list, we repeat, has been furnished us by responsible individuals." 



— 13 



A REPORT 



READ BEFORE THE HOMEOPATHIC ASSOCIATION OF CIN- 
CINNATI, OCT. 1849; BY ALPHONSO TAFT, B. F. BARRETT, 
GEO. CARLISLE, NATH. L. SAWYER, AND GEO. CRAWFORD. 

As elsewhere stated, this is the title of an octavo pamphlet, of 
forty-eight pages, containing a reply to the editor of the Expositor, 
on the subject of Homeopathic Reports. 

In all that is said in this document, but two things are aimed at 
by the committee : 

1st. They attempt to disprove the statement of the editor of the 
Expositor, respecting the nine American cases reported in that 
paper. 

2d. They attempt to disprove the assertion that camphor was 
used by Homeopathists for the cure of cholera in larger doses | 
than by many of their Allopathic neighbors, or that they j 
practiced Allopathy rather than Homeopathy for the cure of 
their cholera patients. It would seem, then, that this whole docu- 
ment is designed to settle adversely to us these two points, which 
involve serious questions of veracity. Drs. Pulte and Ehrmann i 
affirmed in their bulletin that they had lost but two American pa- 
tients with cholera, and the Expositor reported nine who had died 
in their hands, giving names and residences : 

The following is an extract from the Report of the Committee, 
in reply to the Expositor. The) 7- say : 

" First. That in the case of Mr. Chidsey's child, Dr. Davis, and not Drs. Pulte and 
Ehrmann, was the attending physician. Several physicians, and among them Messrs. 
Pulte and Ehrmann, were called in consultation. 

" Second. That Mrs. Trimble was the patient of Dr. Vattier, and not of Drs. Pulte 
and Ehrmann. After her death, however, some of her friends, apprehending that it 
might be apparent only, called in Dr. Pulte, who chanced to be passing by, to see if 
life was really extinct. 

" Third. That Mrs. Hudson's child had been sick with the measles, from which it had 
partially recovered, not, however, under homeopathic treatment, when cholera symp- 
toms appeared, and Drs. Pulte and Ehrmann were called. The symptoms of cholera 
were not severe, and were entirely removed within twenty-four hours. But there 
succeeded a typhoid fever, which, after a course of ten days, terminated fatally. 

"Fourth. That, in the case of Mrs. Reynolds, the patient had taken allopathic medi- , 
cines, was in a state of collapse, and had been given up as hopeless, by the allopathic 
physician who had been first called, and who had declared to her husband that she could 
not survive an hour, before Dr. Pulte was sent for. 

" Fifth. That Mrs. Martin died on the 12th day of August, just twelve days after the 
report of Drs. Pulte and Ehrmann had closed, and one day after it was. published in the 
Cincinnati Gazette. 



— 14 — 

'•' Sixth. That Mrs. Roberts is still alive and well ; that she moved from Harrison street 
during ,the prevalence of the epidemic, but did not die, as may be ascertained by refer- 
ence to the lady herself, at the house of Mr. A. J. Brown, on Broadway. 

" Seventh. That Mrs. Ingalsbe was in a delicate state of health. Dr. Peck was the 
family physician. Mr. Hill, a neighbor, went for Dr. Peck, who was not at home. 
He left word for the Doctor to come immediately on his return home, and then went 
for Dr. Bauer, who was also not at home. He then went for Dr. Pulte, or Ebrmann, 
and found Dr. Pulte on the street, who arrived at the house not far from seven P. M. ; 
was informed that Dr. Peck was her physician, but that he could not, at the time, be 
found. He examined the patient, and gave medicine, informing Mr. Hill, private ly, 
that it was a case of cholera too far gone, he feared, to be cured : that he would be in 
again soon. In about half an hour he returned with his partner, Dr. Ehrmann, and, 
after consultation, they gave medicine and left. In about an hour Dr. Peck arrived and 
took charge of the patient. In half an hour, or an hour after, Drs. Pulte and Ehrmann 
came again, and, after consultation with Dr. Peck, left, Dr. Peck remaining. This was 
near ten, P. M. The lady died between two and three the next morning. It is fair to 
state that the lady was in a collapsed state when Dr. Pulte first arrived. 

"Eighth. That Mrs. Hukill was first taken with dysentery, about twelve days before 
her death ; was treated by Dr. Ehrmann, and in four or five days got better, and the doc- 
tor ceased to visit her. After two or three days, that is to say, on the Thursday night 
preceding the Monday on which she died, she was taken with a diarrhea, and the doctor 
was again called. He regarded her symptoms as tending to cholera, though not then 
severe. She had no nausea, nor cramps, nor any violent symptoms. So she continued 
without perceptible change, till late on Saturday night, when she began to feel sick at the 
stomach, and vomited. The family immediately sent to Dr. Ehrmann for medicine , in- 
forming him of the change in her symptoms. He prepared sixteen powders, directing 
that one be taken every fifteen or twenty minutes, until the symptoms should be 
checked. Of these powders the patient took but two or three, refusing to take more. 
Early in the morning, at about the break of day, Dr. Ehrmann was sent for, but did 
not go. He inquired if the powders had been taken, and was told they had not, when 
he again directed that the powders be given. At eight or nine o'clock, A. M., Dr. Law- 
son was called in ; but he said she was too far gone to be cured, and gave no medicine. 
Dr. Ehrmann came at about ten or eleven o'clock, A. M., and found his package of 
powders on the table, and the patient in a state of collapse, which, considering her age 
and general health, rendered her case hopeless. The doctor, however, left medicine, 
which she took. She died about seven, A. M., on Monday. She was about fifty-seven 
years of age, and was enfeebled by chronic disease. 

" Ninth. The ninth case referred to by the Rev. Dr. Latta, is that of Mr. Richard- 
son's child. The evidence is that the child died not of cholera, but of dropsy on 
the brain. 

" Such your committee have found the facts to be, in relation to the nine deaths by 
cholera charged by Dr. Latta against Drs, Pulte and Ehrmann. These facts were ob- 
tained from thesurviving relatives and friends, and attending physicians, and in the case 
of Mrs. Roberts, from herself." 

The above is an abstract from the report of the committee, of 
all the facts material to the issues in the case. And although at 
' first sight they may seem to invalidate, in part, the report of the 
Expositor, the reverse will appear, as each individual case is exa- 
mined in connection with the detail of facts in the bulletin of Drs. 
Pulte and Ehrmann, who claim to have lost none of any other 
form of disease, during the same time they were in attendance 



— 15 — 

upon the eleven hundred and sixteen cases of cholera : and to 
have lost none of their cholera patients — " even ichere they were 
called TOO LATE to be of any real use," except the two Ameri- 
cans and thirty-three Germans named in their bulletin. The 
reader will therefore bear these two facts in mind, while we pro- 
ceed to a patient investigation of this report. 

The committee decide adversely to us with respect to three of 
the cases reported in the Expositor ; but their examination of the 
case was strictly ex parte, from first to last, and, therefore, entitled 
to no higher consideration than that made to us by six responsible 
individuals, on whose authority the statements were founded. 
The names of our reporters were given to the committee, and yet 
some of them, to say no more, were not even called upon by these 
gentlemen. Had the opposite party been consulted, other facts 
might have been obtained, quite the reverse of those upon which 
the report was founded ; but such was not the course adopted by 
the committee, and hence neither we nor the persons reporting 
to us were summoned to the investigation of a single case. 

Does Mr. Taft, who is himself a lawyer, suppose that we are 
bound to attach any more importance to this kind of ex parte in- 
vestigation than to the statements of the six responsible men, who 
vouch for the correctness of our report? Or can any one believe 
that we should discredit the testomony of six responsible persons, 
even though they might be contradicted by five others equally 
responsible ? Surely not. But such is not the case in the instance 
before us. With respect to seven cases out of the nine, there is in 
fact no serious disagreement. The committee report that one 
of the nine was dead before Dr. Pulte was called, and we have no 
doubt they were so informed by Dr. Pulte, perhaps by others ; but 
they may may have been imposed upon, as they were very likely 
to be by an ex parte investigation. A second person of the nine is 
said to be yet alive, but, as the persons who reported to us were 
not consulted, it is possible, we think, that the committee have 
fallen upon another individual of the same name. A third per- 
son, named in the Expositor, is said by the committee to have 
died in the hands of Drs. Pulte and Ehrmann, one day after their 
bulletin was published. In this we presume they are correct, and 
hence we will allow them the benefit of the date, while we hold 
them strictly responsible for the case. 

The remaining six cases, according to the showing of the com- 
mittee themselves, are stated correctly in the Expositor. It 
avails them nothing to say that this or that case terminated in dis- 



— 16 — 

ease of the brain or typhoid fever ; nor does it avail them anything 
to say that this or that case was in the hands of allopathic physi- 
cians until past cure, or that the patient was in a state of collapse 
when they were called in, because Drs. Pulte and Ehrmann in their 
report, say that they " accounted among those who died all which 

THEY HAD ATTENDED, EVEN IF THEY WERE CALLED AT TOO LATE A TBIE TO 

be of real use." Language could not be stronger — the cases 
could not be more extreme or desperate than those they profess to 
have counted, not even excepting the lady to whom they are said 
to have been called after she was dead. Let us, then, with this 
language in view, proceed to notice more particularly the indi- 
vidual cases examined by the Homeopathic committee. 

1. In the case of Mr. Chidsey's child, the committee attempt 
to release Drs. Pulte and Ehrmann from all responsibility by al- 
ledging that Dr. Davis, a Homeopathist, was the family physican. 
But, alas ! they have to admit that Drs. Pulte and Ehrmann were 
called in ; and, although it may have been " too late to be of any real 
use" they were nevertheless responsible for the case, in that they 
affirm in their bulletin that all such cases were counted. 

2. The committee admit that the child of Mrs. Hudson had the 
cholera, and that Drs. Pulte and Ehrman attended it ; but they al- 
ledge that the disease terminated in typhoid fever, and that there- 
fore the child did not die of cholera. With all due respect for the 
opinions of the committee, we beg leave to assure them that the 
primary affection is that which should have been reported, let it 
assume what form it might in the sequel. But were we even to 
admit that this patient died of nervous or typhoid fever, still the 
committee will have failed to acquit Drs. Pulte and Ehrmann of 
misrepresentation; because, in their report, they affirm that 
during the same time they had " 1,350 cases of mixed character," 
such as "rumbling in the bowels," " dysentery," also " nervous fe- 
ver with typhoid tendency ; " but of these they say " they lost 
none." Of what avail, then, is it to these gentlemen or the com- 
mittee to assert that this patient died of typhoid fever? since 
they declared with equal boldness that they lost none with 
typhoid fever, during the period embraced in their report. Now, 
if in this Drs. Pulte and Ehrmann have stated the truth, does it 
not follow that this patient died of cholera, and not of typhoid 
fever, as assumed by the committee ? We leave the gentlemen 
to settle this seeming contradiction among themselves as best 
they may. 

3. The committee admit that Mrs. Rejmolds died of cholera, in 



-17- 

the hands of Dr. Pulte, but labor to excuse the Dr.'s want of suc- 
cess, by alledging that she was in a collapsed state when he was 
called. In this the committee are mistaken. We have proof positive 
that she was in the hands of Dr. Pulte from first to last, and 
that he pronounced her better some two hours before her death. 
Moreover we can prove that she never swallowed a regular 
dose of medicine from an allopathic physical!. The facts of the 
case are these : Mrs. Reynolds, after having read the extravagant 
reports of Drs. Pulte and Ehrmann in May, wasinduced to rely 
upon them in the event she should be taken with the cholera. 
She made known her wishes to her husband, who strictly com- 
plied with her request. She thought that the regular profession 
could hardly be expected to cure one hundred cases without the 
loss of one, as these gentlemen had reported ; supposing of course 
that their report was true, she made a resolve to employ them, 
and yet she died. And now, not content with having deceived the 
woman to the death, there is still a further attempt to deceive the 
community with respect to her case, than which nothing can be 
more iniquitous. We make these statements upon the authority of 
those who know, and upon the authority of one who administered 
all the medicines which were given ; than whom no one is entitled 
to greater confidence. 

4. The committee admit that Mrs. Martin died of cholera, under 
the treatment of Drs. Pulte and Ehrmann, but maintain that her 
death occurred after they had closed their report — which may be 
true, but still the case was theirs. 

5. The committee admit that Mrs. Engalsbe died of cholera, 
and after making a long talk about Dr. Peck, as the family physi- 
cian, they have to concede at last that Dr. Pulte was first called to the 
case — that at a subsequent visit he took with him his partner, Dr. 
Ehrmann — that at a still later period Dr. Peck arrived, and they 
say took charge of the patient ; but of what avail was this, when, 
according to their own showing, Drs. Pulte and Ehrmann contin- 
ued in attendance? Moreover, they admit that the patient w 7 asin a 
state of collapse before the arrival of Dr. Peck ; and yet strange- 
ly enough, they would have the public believe that Drs. Pulte and 
Ehrmann were not responsible for the case, although they were in 
attendance upon it from beginning to end, with the assistance 
of Dr. Peck. Surely these gentlemen were hard pushed for a 
resort. 

6. About the case of Mrs. Hukill, who died in the hands of Dr. 

Ehrmann, the committee themselves do not appear to be in doubt. 

2 



— 18 — 

They give quite a lengthy history of the case, speak of the call 
of Dr. Lawson to the patient, and of sundry other matters calcu- 
lated to obscure the subject, but after all, they have to admit that 
Dr. Lawson refused to prescribe, and that the patient died under 
the treatment of Dr. Ehrmann. 

7. The child of Mr. Richardson is s aid by the committee to have 
died of dropsy on the brain, and not of cholera. This, however, 
we are not prepared to concede without further investigation. But 
suppose we were to admit it, did not this death occur within the 
time specified in the report of Drs. Pulte and Ehrmann, and is it 
not to be numbered among the " 1.350 cases of mixed character" 
of which they declared " they lost none ? " 

Of what use, then, is it to the committee to multiply cases of this 
sort, which while they lessen the misrepresentation of Drs. Pulte 
and Ehrmann with respect to the number of persons who died in 
their hands of cholera, increase the number of cases who died 
under their treatment of nervous or typhoid fever, of which they 
affirm with equal boldness that they " lost none." The question 
is not (as these gentlemen would have it understood) whether 
there were strictly nine cases, as represented by the Expositor, 
but it is whether there were more cases than were reported by 
Doctors Pulte and Ehrmann. The showing of nine cases by the 
Expositor might have been inaccurate, because those who fur- 
nished them might have been mistaken ; but still this would 
not acquit Doctors Pulte and Ehrmann, should they be found at 
fault on the score of accuracy with respect to a single case ; 
because they affirm, notofthe statements of others, but of patients 
whom they themselves had personally attended. It is not, there- 
fore, important that we should establish the nine cases referred to 
above, in order to convict Doctors Pulte and Ehrmann of misrep- 
resentation in saying that two Americans only had died of 
cholera in their hands. It is only necessary to establish the fact, 
that more than two Americans w^ere lost under their treat- 
ment, in order to invalidate their report; and this we have done 
beyond dispute, according to the showing of the committee them- 
selves. The sudden disappearance of Drs. Pulte and Ehrmann, 
and the appearance of these distinguished gentlemen who have 
taken their place at the bidding of the Society, indicates clearly 
enough that they have superior claims upon the confidence of the 
Society, which was formed avowedly for the defense of their 
Doctors, and the advancement of the system of Homeopathy. 

It might be inferred that Mr. Taft, who is a distinguished lawyer, 



— 19 



and Mr. Barrett a celebrated pulpit orator in the Swedenborgian 
church, would not assume a position in the medical profession un- 
less they were duly authorized to do so by some regularly charter- 
ed medical institution in this or some other country; but we assure 
our readers that neither of these gentlemen have any claims to 
public confidence on the score of competency in the investigation 
of medical subjects ; and we most solemnly protest against their 
claims to disinterestedness as witnesses, and to their right of um- 
pirage in the case. The manner of their appointment, the ex parte 
investigation which they have instituted, and the special pleading 
of their report, clearly demonstrates that they are zealous parti- 
zans, whose object is to defend the report of Drs. Pulte and Ehr- 
mann as best they may. And yet, with all their zeal and earnest- 
ness, they have been compelled, as their report will fully attest, to 
admit the correctness of our statement with respect to six cases 
out of the nine, to which we may safely add one of the two report- 
ed by Drs. Polte and Ehrmann, which is said to have been a young 
man, as no young man can be found in the list we have furnished, 
which will make in all, seven American cases, justly chargeable 
to Drs. Pulte and Ehrmann, instead of two. 

But why did the committee limit their investigation to nine cases 
only? Were there not other nine Americans, and nearly sixty 
Germans, reported through a public journal of this city before the 
issue of their report? And were not the committee importuned by 
the editor of the Expositor to withhold their pamphlet until they 
were in possession of all the cases which could be obtained ? 
And did he not pledge himself to render them all the assistance in 
his power ? Let the following extract answer. In reply to the 
announcement of the committee that a pamphlet would be forth- 
coming, the editor of the Expositor informed them, through the 
" Commercial," that nine new American cases had already been 
discovered, and that others would doubtless be reported soon. 
The following was his language : 

" We hope the committee will continue their investigation, and withhold the forth- 
coming pamphlet until they shall have obtained all the information which may be ne- 
cessary to enable them to put forth an enlightened report; and we pledge ourself to 
render them all the assistance in our power on the score of statistics. Having been 
absent from the city a few weeks, we have not been able to do as much in this way as 
they might have desired, but still we have a few additional cases of American patients, 
who died of cholera in the hands of Drs. Pulte and Ehrmann, during the late epidemic, 
with which the committee must be satisfied for the present; and perhaps by the time 
they have investigated these, we may have more to report. The}'' are as follows: 

1. Mrs. Andress, Sixth street, north side, near Mound. 



— 20 — 

2 and 3. Mr. Black's wife and child, Sycamore street, near Franklin. 

4. Mrs. Reddington, Homeopathic Doctress. 

5 and 6. Mr. Ennis and Mrs. Lock, Seventh st, north side, 4 doors above Linn, 

7. John M. C. Krider, Main st., west side, bet. 5th and 6th. 

8. Mrs. Enis, Seventh st., just above Linn. 

9. Mrs. Banks, Kemble st., between Western Row and John. 

The above nine American cases, have all been reported to us by responsible individuals, 
and hence we have no reason to doubt the correctness of the report. We have also a 
list of some fifty or sixty German patients who are said to have died of cholera in the 
hands of Drs. Pulte and Ehrmann, including a few Irish; but as the list is very lengthy, 
we will not publish it until called for by the Homeopathic committee, at which time we 
may be able to give them more." 

With all these assurances, and with the above nine new Araer- 
can and from fifty to sixty German cases before their eyes, this 
committee issued their report in pamphlet form, without the slight- 
est reference to either, and without an apology for their delinquency. 
They seem to have become weary in well doing, or what is by far 
more probable, they discovered that it was utterly impossible to 
defend the exaggerated report of Drs. Pulte and Ehrmann, and 
therefore left these gentlemen to their fate. Add to these the sev- 
en cases made out by the committee, and three which have since 
been reported to us, and we have in all nineteen Americans, and 
nearly sixty Germans who are reported to have died of cholera in 
the hands of Drs. Pulte and Ehrmann, who so unblnshingly declared 
that they had lost bat two Americans and thirty-three Germans. 
The silence of the committee with respect to all these cases, save 
only the nine first reported, affords proof, clear and convincing, 
that they were afraid of the issue and of the result. There is too 
much intelligence in the committee not to have perceived the dan- 
ger to which they themselves would have been exposed by further 
efforts to screen these gentlemen from public scorn, for the daring 
attempt they had made to deceive in a matter so vitally important 
to the communit} 7 , both with respect to health and life, But let us 
examine, a little more closely, the statements of Drs. Pulte and 
Ehrmann, as set forth in this report. 

Not content with the monstrous declaration that they had treat- 
ed eleven hundred and sixteen cholera patients in ninety days, los- 
ing but two Americans out of four hundred and seventy-four, and 
but thirty-three Germans out of six hundred and forty-two pa- 
tients, they go right on to say, that they treated, during the same 
time, "thirteen hundred and fifty cases of mixed character, and a 
great number of dysenteries, and also a good many nervous fe- 
vers with typhoid tendency," of which they say they lost none. 
Now suppose these cases of dysenteries and typhoid fever were 



— 21 — 

equal to the cases of mixed character, which is probably a fair 
presumption, it would make in all four thousand and fifty pa- 
tients, each of which would probably have required, on an aver- 
age, two visits every twenty-four hours, which would have made 
the whole number of visits, eight thousand one hundred. The 
eleven hundred and sixteen cholera patients must have requir- 
ed attention at least to the amount of six visits every twenty- 
four hours, which would amount to six thousand six hundred and 
ninety-six visits to their cholera patients. Add these to the num- 
ber of visits to mixed cases, cases of dysentery, nervous fe- 
ver, etc., and we have the enormous sum total of fourteen 
thousand seven hundred and ninety-six visits in ninety days ; and 
when, in addition to all this, we take into the account the time 
spent in attention to obstetrical business and the sale of cholera 
preventives in their office, which probably emplo} r ed one-third of all 
their time, we think there can be but little doubt that they were 
kept comfortably busy, to say no more : For we are sure no ten 
physicians can do the amount of business involved in this cal- 
culation. And of this we have proof in the startling fact reveal- 
ed in the report of the committee, that ten other Homeopathic 
doctors do not, in all, report as many cholera patients as Drs. Pulte 
and Ehrmann, and yet all, we presume, were constantly employed. 
The committee say, that they " presume that Dr. Latta will 
promptly correct what he finds to be incorrect in his published 
statements of this subject" — that "his error consisted in giving 
too ready heed to those rumors, which are always rife in times of 
terror and alarm " — "that such subjects should be examined with 
some degree of charity, and some grains of allowance for human 
infirmity," etc. The truth of the last statement we cheerfully admit, 
and we are fully prepared to make allowance by the pound ; but 
even then w r e could not have spared the report of these gentle- 
men. Nor were we misled by rumor. The persons reporting to 
us, alledged that they were personally cognizant of the facts. It 
is true, that we did not have the parties summoned to a formal 
investigation. Nor did the committee themselves adopt a formal- 
ity of process with respect to the nine cases reported by the Ex- 
positor. They inquired individually, we are told, of A, B, and C, 
if these things were so, and reported accordingly ; and hence 
they might have spared themselves the trouble of admonishing 
others of the impropriety of relying upon rumor. They admit, 
moreover, that the facts upon which they found their report were, 
partly obtained from the " attending physicians" who, of course, 



9-2 



would not be at fault in making good the story. " These facts 
(say the committee) were obtained from the surviving relatives, 
and friends, and attending physicians" It is novel, indeed, that 
Drs. Pulte and Ehrmann should have been called upon as wit- 
nesses, in a case in which they themselves were the accused ? 
And yet such seems to have been the policy adopted, and hence 
it is not at all surprising that some of the persons are said to have 
been dead before they were called, and that others are reported 
still alive. In view of this fact, it will not be difficult, we think, 
for the reader to perceive that no reliance can be placed upon 
the report of the committee, because the investigation, it will be 
seen, was not only ex parte, but the very persons against whom 
the charges were urged by the Expositor, were allowed to testify in 
favor of themselves, and in the absence of the opposite party; and, 
| consequently, a verdict of not guilty with the committee, would be 
' the natural result. But such will not be the verdict of community. 
We do not charge upon them intentional wrong, as it is pos- 
| sible that Mr. Taft, Mr. Barrett, and the other members of the com- 
| mittee who were not accustomed to the investigation of medical 
| subjects, may have supposed that the testimony of the accused was 
even better than that of others less interested in the matter. The 
legal member of the committee knew, of course, that in ordinary 
cases, testimony of this sort would not be admissible ; but as this 
was a matter of dispute among doctors, he probably supposed 
that it was an exception to the general laws of evidence. This, 
to say the least, was exceedingly liberal on the part of the judges 
in the case, who, according to another principle of law, are al- 
ways supposed to be on the side of the criminal. 

But to be serious, nothing, it seems to us, could be more ridicu- 
lously absurd than to found a report upon the testimony of inter- 
ested persons, as in the instance now under consideration. 

In concluding their remarks on this point, the committee say : 
" If the editor of the Expositor had established his nine cases 
against Drs. Pulte and Ehrmann, it would have availed him and 
his cause but little, in that reports of like success are coming from 
every city and county where Homeopathy has been tried." Now 
if this be true, it would only establish the fact that no reliance 
can be placed on the reports of Homeopathists, for surely, nothing 
can be clearer than that Drs. Pulte and Ehrmann are greatly at 
fault on the score of accuracy, both with respect to the number 
they attended, and the number who died in their hands. 



— 23 — 

In further proof of this, we invite the attention of the reader 
to the following calculation : 

If Drs. Pulte and Ehrmann had eleven hundred and sixteen 
cases of cholera in ninety days, how many cases would there 
have been, provided all the other practitioners in the city, amount- 
ing in all to about two hundred, had attended each as many as 
either of these gentlemen, which is no doubt the fact, for the rea- 
son that all, as everybody knows, were busily employed during 
the cholera. According to this calculation, there would have 
been in this city in ninety days, one hundred and eleven thousand 
six hundred cases of cholera. In addition to this, suppose that all 
the others had each as many mixed cases, and as many cases of 
dysentery, and nervous fever, with typhoid tendency, how many 
of our citizens would have been sick during the ninety days spe- 
cified in their report ? Their mixed cases amounted to thirteen 
hundred and fifty. Now suppose the cases of dysentery and ty- 
phous fever were equal in number to the mixed cases — which is a 
fair presumption — it would make, in all, four thousand and fifty 
cases. If each of the two hundred physicians, above alluded to, 
had as many in proportion, it would make four hundred and fif- 
teen thousand. Add to these, one hundred and eleven thousand, 
six hundred cholera cases, and we have the enormous sum total, 
of five hundred and sixteen thousand, six hundred patients in 
ninety days. But suppose there should chance to be a mistake 
of a hundred in the number of practitioners. It would only re- 
duce the whole number of patients one half, which would still 
leave two hundred and fifty-eight thousand, three hundred pa- 
tients, whereas there are but one hundred and fifty thousand in- 
habitants within the range of the city practice. This calculation, 
it will be seen, proves conclusively, if Drs. Pulte and Ehrmann's 
report be true, that during the time they specified, every citizen, 
young and old, were sick, either of cholera, dysentery, typhous 
fever, " rumbling in the bowels" or some other disease of mixed 
character, and that there were one hundred and eight thousand 
three hundred cases beside. If the reader can believe this, it 
may, in truth, be said of him, " great is thy faith." 

We greatly wonder that non-professional gentlemen should at- 
tempt the discussion of the comparative merit of two systems of 
medical practice, neither of which they are supposed to have 
studied. And it is a matter of still greater surprise, that Mr. Taft, 
who sustains a high position in the legal profession, should have 
hazarded his standing by an attempt to act the doctor as in the 



— 24 — 

report now under consideration, which is said to have issued from 
his pen. Indeed, it would seem, from the tenor and tone of the 
report, that he and the other gentlemen with whom he is associa- 
ted, have come to the deliberate conclusion that the people must 
take in hand the reform of medical theories. They admit that, 
"the mass of mankind may not be able to decide whose theory is 
most logical, but they are competent (they affirm) to appreciate 
the results of medical practice, when plainly and fairly stated." 
To this we agree; but our learned committee are obviously 
not content to judge of the result of medical practice, and say 
to their physicians, stand aside, and let we, the people, discuss 
the claims of the different systems. Now if the people are com- 
petent to the task of reforming the regular system of medicine, 
why not take in hand the reform of the profession of law? Would 
the legal member of the committee consent? Why not? It is 
not half so difficult to acquire a knowledge of law as of medi- 
cine, nor yet so dangerous to community, should the legal pre- 
tender be ignorant of the profession, because money is at stake in 
the one case, and life in the other. There is no member of the 
medical profession, we are sure, who might not, with as much 
propriety, attempt to act the lawyer, as that Mr. Taft, and the 
other non-professional gentlemen, composing the committee, 
should claim the right of umpirage with respect to the compara- 
tive claims of different systems of medicine. 

The people can doubtless judge correctly of the success of med- 
ical practitioners, when not deceived by false representations, and 
are fully competent to choose their own physicians, but we doubt 
whether many can be found so arrogant as to assume to know more 
with respect to medicine than those who have devoted their lives 
to the study and practice of the profession : Hence we reckon 
the converts of the committee will be few. All men of common 
sense, and a moderate share of observation, will readily perceive 
that physicians can have no interest in rejecting any set of rem- 
edies, or any system of practice, which would enable them to suc- 
ceed in the cure of maladies, because their own reputation 
depends upon their success. In view of this fact, and this alone, 
it must be obvious to all that they would be first to avail them- 
selves of the best means of cure, be it Homeopathy, or any other 
pathy now agitating the public mind. 

There are not many, we suppose, who can be induced by this 
committee to believe, that the regular profession are knaves, who 
knowingly practice a system which they themselves consider infe- 



rior to others, or that they are less competent than the people to 

J judge of the comparative merits of the different theories of 
practice. 

We will now proceed to notice the arguments by which these 
gentlemen attempt to refute the second charge urged by the 
Expositor against Drs. Pulte and Ehrmann, viz., that of using al- 
lopathic treatment for the cure of cholera. They alledge, first, 
that camphor, according to Hahnemann, is a homeopathic rem- 
edy for the disease. But their reasoning is not only in violation 
of the rule of Hahnemann, for testing the Homeopathic action of 
medicines, but it is also in violation of the rule which they them- 
selves have adopted. 

First. Hahnemann prescribed '*' moderate closes " of medicines, and 

\ his practice was in harmony with the rule. It reads as follows : 
{: There is no safer, or more natural method of discovering the 
effects of medicine on the health of man (says Hahnemann) than 
by trying them separately and singly, in MODERATE DOSES, 

. upon healthy individuals, and observing what changes they create 

in the moral and physical state; that is to say, what elements of 

disease these substances are capable of producing."' Here, then, 

is the rule laid down by Hahnemann. (See Organon, page 191.) 

The very first experiment which he is said to have made, 

; was "while engaged in translating the Materia Medica of 

■ the illustrious Cullen, in 1790, in which the febrifuge virtues of 

j Cinchona bark are described, he became fired with a desire of as- 
certaining its mode of action. "While in the enjoyment of the 
most robust state of health, he commenced the use of this sub- 
stance, and in a short time was attacked with all the symp- 
toms of intermittent fever, similar, in every respect, to those 
which that medicine is known to cure. Being struck, it is said, 
with the identity of the two diseases, he immediately divined the 

l great truth which has become the foundation of the new medical 

I doctrine of Homeopathy." (See Organon.) 

To transcend the regular dose in one instance, and fall below 
it in another, in an attempt to discover the legitimate homeo- 

: pathic action of medicine, would be ridiculously absurd. In the 
instance above he was himself the subject of experiment, and, of 
course, he did not take the medicine in " immoderate or poisonous 
doses," but in the size doses for which it was administered by al- 
lopathic physicians for the cure of intermittent fever. i\.nd of 

. this we have additional proof in the trials subsequently made 
with the sulphate of quinine, which he affirms he adminis- 



— 26 — 

tered in grain doses three times a day, until all the symptoms of 
intermittent fever were produced. 

It is therefore clearly established, that it was a rule with Hah- 
nemann not to administer medicine beyond the regular allopathic 
dose in order to arrive at its true homeopathic uses. Indeed, it 
would seem that he usually relied upon less than the regular dose, 
as was natural enough, especially, when he himself was the sub- 
ject of experiment. 

Such was the rule, and such the practice of the founder, 
which, while they harmonize one with the other, never did and 
never will produce the results ascribed to them by that gentleman. 
That bark, or quinine, administered to persons in health, as indi- 
cated by his rule and practice, will never produce the symp- 
toms of intermitting fever, is absolutely certain; for we have 
known them employed for months, in even larger doses, without 
producing a solitary symptom of that disease. That Hahnemann 
may have taken an intermitting fever while experimenting with 
the medicine, is admitted; but that the effect was not justly 
chargeable to the remedies he employed, is as easily demon- 
strated as that three and two are five. And we challenge the 
advocates of the system to an investigation of the fact by experi- 
ment, in harmony with the rule and practice of Hahnemann. 
Now, as this trial with quinine is that which gave birth to 
the system, and is that upon which it is founded, it is important 
to all believers in Homeopathy to test the truth of the declaration, 
that it is capable of producing all the symptoms of intermitting 
fever, and then they will see that the system was false in its 
inception, that it is false in its facts and reasonings, and that it 
will be perpetually false in its results. 

Be this, however, as it may, we think the reader will perceive 
that Hahnemann not only prescribed but practiced the rule which 
requires MODERATE DOSES of medicines to be given to per- 
sons in health, for the purpose of proving their homeopathic 
uses, or in other words, for the purpose of elucidating the prop- 
osition, Similia Similibus Curantur. Having established this point, 
we will next proceed to show that the committee, instead of ad- 
hering to this rule, adopted one of their own, which requires that 
medicines should be given to persons in health in "LARGE 
DOSES," for the purpose of establishing the same proposition. 

The following is their rule, which we find in italics in the re- 
port : " The first question (they say), is whether these remedies ad- 
ministered in LARGE DOSES to persons in health, would pro- 



duce symptoms similar to those of the cholera in the several stages 
of it, for which they are respectively administered." The reader 
will readily perceive that this is not only in conflict with the prac- 
tice and rule adopted by Hahnemann, but that their reasoning 
is founded upon a rule differing from both ; for in essaying to 
prove that camphor and other medicines named are Homeopathic 
remedies for cholera, they predicate their reasoning of " IMMOD- 
ERATE OR POISONOUS DOSES" of medicine. In proof of 
which we invite the attention of the reader to the following 
extract from their report : 

" But your committee have thought it due to the opponents of Homeopathy, to look into 
their books, that, if they have given any testimony on the subject, that testimony may 
not be lost. The first medicine to be tried, is camphor. The ' United States Dispensa- 
tory,' a standard work in Allopathy, which has gone through eight editions, and the 
authority of which will not be disputed by any regular physician, gives the following 
account of the medical properties and uses of camphor : ' In large doses, it displays a 
more decided action on the brain, producing more or less giddiness and mental confu- 
sion, with a disposition to sleep.' ' In immoderate doses, it occasions nausea, vomit- 
ing, anxiety, faint ness, vertigo, delirium, insensibility, coma, and convulsions, which may 
end in death.'' — U. S. Dispensatory, p. 157, Sth Ed. 

" If to the above symptoms, be added what the patient provings of Homeopathy have 
long since established, viz: 'involuntary diarrhea' and coldness of the extremities, we 
have a vivid picture of cholera itself, in its first and second stages." 

Now, from the above, it will be seen that the Dispensatory is 
not quoted on the subject of " MODERATE DOSES," which would 
indicate the homeopathic action of camphor, in harmony with the 
rule of Hahnemann, but the quotation commences with the effects 
of " LARGE DOSES," in harmony with the rule of the commit- 
tee; and there it might have been expected to stop, but, it seems, it 
does not. These gentlemen, finding that camphor, in large doses, 
was incapable of producing anything more than " giddiness, men- 
tal confusion, and a disposition to sleep," readily enough perceived 
that the Dispensatory never could help them out, in harmony with 
the rule adopted by themselves ; and hence, they abandon the rule 
and appeal to the Dispensatory for proof that camphor, in " IM- 
MODERATE DOSES," would produce the " symptoms of chol- 
era." And what of all this ? Does it prove anything in favor 
of an assumption which is predicated of " LARGE DOSES " of 
medicines. In immoderate doses, even buttermilk, molasses, 
sweet potatoes, or cabbage, might produce many, if not all, the 
symptoms ascribed to immoderate doses of camphor ; and, there- 
fore, according to the reasoning of this committee, buttermilk, 
molasses, sweet potatoes, and, above all, cabbage, are true homeo- 
pathic remedies for cholera. It is ridiculous enough to appeal to 



— 28 — 

"immoderate doses" of medicine, as a rule, for testing their ho- 
meopathic action, and yet such is the resort of the committee. 
We admonish the reader to beware, lest he be made the subject 
of experiments for establishing a s} T stem which requires the actual 
poisoning of some, in order to discover suitable remedies for the 
cure of others ; for we are very sure that there are not many in 
community who would volunteer to take poisonous, or " IM- 
MODERATE" doses of medicine, for the sake of establishing the 
fanatical delusion indicated by the phrase, " similia similibus 
curantur." The cholera would, indeed, be a very harmless thing, 
if it developed no other symptoms than those ascribed in the Dis- 
pensatory, to "LARGE DOSES" of camphor, which is nothing 
more or less than u giddiness and mental confusion, with a disposi- 
tion to sleep." Now, if these are the symptoms of cholera, then 
is camphor a homeopathic remedy for that disease, if the rule 
adopted by the committee be correct; but that they are not, every 
man of common sense must know, who has ever seen a case ; and. 
therefore , according to the authority they themselves have intro- 
duced, and according to their own rule of interpretation, which 
limits the resemblance to that of " large doses" camphor is not a 
homeopathic remedy for cholera. 

But again. The committee, after having quoted from the Dis- 
pensatory, what is said of the effects of "immoderate doses" of 
camphor, finding that even this did not come up to the standard of 
cholera, coldness, cramps, and diarrhea, not being named, render- 
ing the resemblance very imperfect, proceed to add " involuntary 
diarrhea and coldness of the extremities as the result of the patient 
provings of homeopathy" declaring in the end, that they "have a vivid 
picture of cholera itself." But, in this, they are quite mistaken, for, 
with all the addition which the " patient provings of Homeopathy " 
have made, cramps are still wanting, which mars the resemblance 
very materially, because, cramps are among the most prominent 
symptoms of the disease. It will take still further "provings of 
Homeopathy," to bring out this very important feature in the re- 
semblance. Immoderate doses have not developed cramps ; the 
" further provings of Homeopathy," which, of course, required MORE 
than an "IMMODERATE DOSE," have not developed them; 
and, hence, the dose must still be increased, or the theory of the 
committee must fall to the ground. Who, of the advocates of the 
doctrine, will volunteer as victims to the cause? What brave 
knight will come to the rescue ? Better that one suffer than many. 
It is possible that " Young Physic," the dreamy correspondent of 



the " Times," could be induced to become the martyr to a system for 
which he has already made sacrifices of the most painful and del- 
icate character. But to be serious, we have never seen anything 
more palpably absurd, than the statements and reasoning of this 
report. And yet, in the close of this miserable attempt to dis- 
prove the statements of the Expositor, ''touching the use of cam- 
phor by the Homeopathists, they wind up with a flourish, "That 
the assertion of the learned Doctor, that no one, he was sure, 
would assume that camphor was emetic and cathartic, was not 
well considered." 

But what proof, may we ask, have these gentlemen produced 
in support of their assumption, that camphor is emetic or cathar- 
tic? Nothing, surely, except their own affirmation that it is 
a remedy for cholera, which they essay to prove by an appeal 
to the United States Dispensatory. And now that they " have 
appealed to Caesar, to Caesar they must go." We are more than 
willing to abide the decisions of the Dispensatory. 

First. Hahnemann, it will be recollected, adopted a rule which 
requires "MODERATE DOSES" of medicine to be given to per- 
sons in health to test their homeopathic action. Let us see, then, 
whether the symptoms produced by "MODERATE DOSES" of 
camphor, as detailed, are analogous to those of cholera. It is 
assumed by the Dispensatory, and it is no doubt true, that " the 
effects of medicine vary with the quantity administered." Cam- 
phor, in " moderate doses," " produces, in a healthy individual, 
mental exhileration, increased heat of skin, and occasional dia- 
phoresis," or perspiration. Is there anything, in these symptoms, 
analogous to the symptoms of cholera? On the contrary, are they 
not exactly the reverse ? That there is no " exhileration," and no 
"heat of the skin" in cholera, everybody must admit, who have 
ever been cognizant of a case; and hence, the symptoms produced 
by a "MODERATE DOSE" of camphor are not only wanting in 
resemblance to those of cholera, but they are directly the reverse; 
and therefore, according to the rule of Hahnemann and the United 
States Dispensatory, to both of which these gentlemen appeal, 
camphor is not emetic or cathartic, and of course not a homeo- 
pathic remedy for that disease, as assumed in the report. 

Second. The committee assume that LARGE DOSES of medi- 
cine should be given to persons in health, to prove their homeo- 
pathic action ; and appeal to the United States Dispensatory in 
proof of the assumption that camphor, in LARGE DOSES, pro- 
duces all the symptoms of cholera. Well, let us see if even 



— 30 — 

in this the Dispensatory will sustain them. " In large doses," 
says this authority, " it displays a more decided action on the 
brain, producing more or less giddiness and mental confusion, 
with a disposition to sleep, and in morbid states of the system, 
relieving pain and allaying spasmodic action." From this it 
will be seen, that camphor is not only incapable, even in 
" LARGE DOSES," of producing any of the prominent symp- 
toms of cholera, but that in "LARGE DOSES" it actually 
" allays spasmodic action," showing most conclusively that it 
produces symptoms directly the reverse of those of cholera ; and 
hence we are fully sustained in the assumption that camphor is 
not a homeopathic remedy for that disease. It must be obvious, 
then, we think, to every intelligent reader, that neither the rule of 
Hahnemann, nor that adopted by the committee themselves, will 
bear them out in the assertion, that, according to the showing of 
the Dispensatory, camphor is a homeopathic remedy for cholera. 
Indeed, of this they themselves seem to be conscious, and hence 
their appeal to the effects of "IMMODERATE DOSES" of this 
and the other medicines named in proof of their assumption, which 
resort, as elsewhere proved, is equally abortive, in that camphor, 
even in " IMMODERATE DOSES," is incapable of producing all 
the symptoms of the disease. We repeat, therefore, what we 
affirmed at first, that no one at all acquainted with the effects of 
camphor, would assume that] it is either emetic or cathartic. In 
conclusion, it will be perceived, 

First. That the rule of Hahnemann has been abandoned by 
the committee. 

Second. That their own rule has also been abandoned ; and 
finals, when they have appealed to " immoderate doses," in vio- 
lation of all rule, they have still failed to disprove the charge of 
the Expositor, that Homeopathists resorted to allopathic treatment 
for the cure of cholera. 

But, as the last resort, the committee say, that Hahnemann 
recommended camphor for the treatment of that disease. And 
what if he did? Have we not proved that his own rule limited him 
to the use of " MODERATE DOSES " of medicine in proving their 
homeopathic action ? And have we not proved by the United 
States Dispensatory, to which these gentlemen themselves have 
appealed for evidence, that camphor, in moderate doses, produces 
symptoms precisely the reverse of cholera ? Of what avail, then, 
is it to refer to the fact, that Hahnemann recommended camphor 
for the disease ? This fact, if established, while it would afford 



— 31 — 

no proof of the assumption of the committee, would only serve to 
render ridiculous the system itself; because, according to their own 
showing, and the rule of Hahnemann, there is no resemblance 
between the effects of camphor, in " MODERATE DOSES," and 
the symptoms of cholera. The committee have not only failed to 
sustain this assumption of Drs. Pulte and Ehrmann, but it will be 
seen that the whole thing is a humbug, from first to last. They 
have utterly failed to acquit Drs. Pulte and Ehrmann of the 
charges urged by the Expositor, and they make no attempt to 
sustain the assumption of these gentlemen, that "the chemists 
would be astonished " to learn that there was a test, " for cor- 
rosive sublimate." Bat again, they charge the editor of the 
Expositor with mortal offense, for saying, as they ailedge, " that 
two drops of camphor every five minutes was equal to from fif- 
teen to twenty grains every hour." We beg to assure them, how- 
ever, that in this their labor is lost, as we never affirmed, as 
charged by the committee. It was said that we had known them 
to administer from three to R\e drops every three minutes, and 
that in this way from fifteen to twenty grains of camphor were 
administered every hour. 

These gentlemen, after quoting from several authors what is said 
of the treatment of cholera, and not finding camphor mentioned 
as a remedy, conclude, therefore, that camphor had never been 
used by allopathic physicians until recommended by Hahnemann 
in 1829. They say : " We have seen no evidence whatever, that 
any one of the remedies, recommended by him, had ever been 
used in cholera, unless, perhaps, we ought to except the declara- 
tion of Dr. Latta in the article under consideration, ' that it is 
known to community that regular physicians have always relied 
upon camphor.' " 

It is quite logical, we suppose, in the estimation of these dis- 
tinguished laymen, to infer that because in the half dozen books 
they consulted, no mention is made of camphor, that, therefore, it 
had not been used by the regular profession. And suppose it was 
true, that fifty authors had failed to give any account of camphor 
as a remedy for that disease, would this afford proof that it had 
never been employed by the regular profession ? The Expositor 
affirmed that camphor had always been relied upon, to a consider- 
able extent, for the cure of cholera; but the committee declare 
that Elliottson, Watson, Dunglison, and some three or four others, 
make no mention of camphor in the treatment of the disease, and, 
therefore, they conclude, that camphor has never been used by the 



regular profession. Nay, more, it is proof positive, in their esti- 
mation, that it was never even named prior to 18:39, " unless (say 
the committee) we ought, perhaps, to except the declaration of 
Dr. Latta, that it is known to community, that physicians have 
always relied upon camphor." This is, indeed, logic with a ven- 
geance. It is, however, precisely the kind which might have been 
expected from gentlemen wholly unacquainted with the investiga- 
tion of medical subjects. But is it a fact, that camphor was never 
employed by the regular profession until recommended by Hahn- 
emann in 1829 ? We affirm it is not. It was used in India, in 
the treatment of cholera, as early, at least, as 1818. ^See notice 
of Bell's Quarterly Reviewer, in the Medico Chirurgical Review, 
vol. x, page 193, in which it is said, the "bleeding, leeching, 
cupping, and stimulants, such as opium, ether, CAMPHOR, 
ammonia, peppermint, brandy, and calomel, are the chief means" 
employed for the cure of cholera. Here, then, we have proof 
positive, that the statement of the committee that Hahnemann 
was the first to recommend camphor for the cure of cholera 
in 1829, is utterly untrue ; and we leave these modest laymen 
to all the self-gratulation which they may be able to derive 
from the swaggering announcement that they " ought, perhaps, 
to except the declaration of Dr. Latta," etc. It would indeed 
have been fortunate for them, had they excepted "the de- 
clarations " of many others also. But in this, as in other 
instances, the committee are, no doubt, indebted to their doctors 
for the ridiculous blunder they have made, which will probably 
teach them a lesson that may prevent them in future from med- 
dling with subjects they do not understand. But had it even been 
true, as affirmed by the committee, that Hahnemann was the 
first to recommend camphor in the cure of this disease, it would 
still not be true that the Expositor was at fault in saying, that 
the community were apprized " that regular physicians had al- 
ways relied upon it to a considerable extent," because the re- 
mark was not predicated of any period prior to the appearance 
of the cholera in this " community," to whose knowledge of the 
use of camphor the appeal was made. The idea was prominent 
in the mind of the writer that in the year 1832-3 it was exten- 
sively employed by the regulars, although Homeopathy was not 
known in this community, and hence, the community were ap- 
pealed to for the truth of the assertion. 

Having now established the fact, beyond dispute, that camphor 
is not a homeopathic remedy for the cholera, and that it was 



chiefly relied upon by Homeopathists, for the cure of that disease, 
as is clearly admitted in this report, does it not follow, therefore, 
as an irresistible conclusion, that their success, so far as they had 
any, was justly attributable to allopathic treatment, rather than to 
Homeopathy. But, in concluding our remarks upon this point, 
we wish to direct the attention of the reader to the two following 
questions. We have seen in the progress of this investigation, 
that camphor was chiefly relied upon by the Homeopathists, for 
the cure of the disease, and that it was not less extensively 
employed by the regular profession. Why, then, were not the 
two equally successful ? Why should the former cure all their 
patients with camphor, while in the hands of the latter, the same 
medicine was wholly impotent, as these gentlemen would have it 
understood? 

The committee next express their opinion of the regular pro- 
fession, of whom, they say, "for the last two thousand years, 
they have added to not less than they have taken from themortality 
of disease by their prescriptions." For this we have no reply, 
other than to ask the reader if it can be believed? Or can the 
authors of such a statement expect to retain the confidence or re- 
spect of the regular profession, and those who employ them? And, 
above all, can they rationally expect a deferential reply to a de- 
claration so unmitigated in its disrespect, and so utterly false in 
its statement of facts ? In perfect harmony with this, however, 
the committee proceed to comment upon the conduct of the regu- 
lars in Cincinnati. They say : 

" In the year 1840, Homeopathy commenced her mission in Cincinnati, as usual, amid 
the scoffs and sneers of the professors of Allopathy. Her course has been quiet and un- 
obtrusive. While Allopathy has had its monthly ' Lancet,' and has almost daily com- 
mended its own performances in the political journals of the day, she has been sileni. 
In the mean time, the Doctors of Homeopathy have been denied all place among the 
medical faculty ; their individual statements have been pronounced false ; and contempt 
has been cast on those who countenanced them. They have been greeted as " Quacks," 
"Impostors,"' "Foreigners,"'' "Germans;" and where they have had occasion to en- 
force the collecticn of their fees in a court of law, there they have been met by their 
Allopathic opponents, under oath, seeking to drive them from the bar of justice ; and they 
have been reduced to the mortifying necessity of exhibiting to a court and jury in Hamil- 
ton county, their medical diplomas, before they could be allowed to claim payment for 
their professional services." 

This extract, in all its details, we are compelled to pronounce 
untrue. The committee are, doubtless, honest in their belief, as 
they were, no doubt, so informed, but we beg to assure them, and 
all concerned, that the above statements are utterly false. 

First. The course of Homeopathy has not been " quiet and un- 
3 



obtrusive," as affirmed by the committee ; in that the whole country 
has been flooded with pamphlets, containing popular appeals to 
the people, and extravagant reports of success, while the daily 
secular press has, also, been employed to trumpet the fame of 
Homeopathy — ■ a thing unprecedented in the regular profession. 

Second. It is not true, as stated, that Allopathy " has almost daily 
commended its own performances in the political journals of the 
day." Nay, verily we may say, it is utterly false. There is noth- 
ing more contemptible than this in the eyes of the regular profes- 
sion. It is true that they have the monthly "Lancet;" but it is 
equally true that it is intended for the eye of the medical profes- 
sion, and, that in it no man is permitted to advertise his success 
in practice : and the same is true of all our medical journals. 
The case, however, is widely different with the Homeopathists. 
They, too, have their journals, one of which is now on our table 
and, instead of being devoted to the investigation of medical sub-' 
jects, it is almost exclusively filled with puffs of Homeopathic 
success, as are the political journals of the day. We allude to 
" The North Western Journal of Homeopathy," than which, a more 
contemptible thing has never appeared upon our table. The 
cover is green, the contents greener, and the editor himself is the 
greenest of all. 

Third. It is not true that the regular profession have met them 
at the bar of justice, to prevent them from recovering their 
claims. In this, as in other instances, the committee have 
no doubt been deceived, perhaps by the very men whom they 
have volunteered to defend. It has been the settled policy of the 
regulars to testify in all cases where the legal claims of quacks 
were in question, that they should be paid the regular fees, 
because those who employ them do it of choice, with a full 
knowledge of their character and claims. Moreover, it is known 
that no statute exists in Ohio which requires the exhibition of 
diplomas in order to the collection of fees, as the committee 
would have us believe; and of this Mr. Taft, as a lawyer, ought 
to have been apprized. 

There is nothing, we confess, in this report, upon which we 
look with so much contempt, as upon this effort of the committee 
to enlist the sympathies of the community, by the cry of persecu- 
tion. No physician in this city, we are sure, has so often resorted 
to law for the recovery of claims as Doctor Pulte, and no one, we 
presume, has been more successful than he in recovering them. 

It is true that we call them quacks, because they are quacks, 



— 35 — 

unmitigated quacks — as base in their pretensions to knowledge 
of medical science, as in their designs upon the people. 

It is also stated by this committee, that Doctors Pulte and 
Ehrmann's report was in answer to a public call through the 
papers. We are aware that one call for reports was made anon- 
ymously through one of the city journals, and beyond that, we 
believe no calls of the sort were ever made. 

On the subject of doses, the committee say, that "one grain of 
mercury would last a physician in full business for years, and that a 
single grain of arsenic would suffice for all the homeopathic physicians 
in the city an entire year" and so of other medicines. 

Reader, what think you of this as a system of practice ? Can 
any one believe that medicines thus emplo^yed can ever effect a 
cure in any given case? For ourself we could as easily 
believe that the heavens are brass, and that the earth is a whale 
in the midst of the ocean. But in turn, we are asked if cures are 
not effected by those who practice the system. To this we 
respond in the affirmative. But this is no proof that the system 
itself is true, because we have already clearly established the fact 
that allopathic treatment is resorted to in disguise, by those w r ho 
profess to be practicing Homeopathy; moreover, we know it to 
be a fact, that in many instances the slightest indisposition is 
named, by pretenders, typhous fever, cholera, scarlatina, croup, or 
some other terrible malady, for the sake of acquiring a reputation 
for the cure of that which never existed. But where such dis- 
eases actually occur, if allopathic treatment is not adopted, the 
patient dies as certainly as that he is sick, except in those in- 
stances where nature alone is adequate to the cure. 

But if one grain of medicine is sufficient for all the homeo- 
pathic physicians in this city, as affirmed by the committee, it 
would allow probably the millionth part of a grain to each box of 
cholera preventives, which are sold, we are informed, at from 
$1.50 to $5.00 per box. This is paying quite liberally for the 
millionth part of a grain of medicine, with as much sugar as a 
man may carry in his vest or pantaloons pocket. But to say 
nothing of the enormous price demanded, is not the man to 
be pitied who can be duped into a reliance upon a small box of 
sugar, which contains the millionth part of a grain of veratrum, 
copper, spurred rye, and camphor, for the prevention and cure of 
cholera? And is not the pretender who thus deceives his brother 
to the death, justly entitled to eternal execration. 

There are at present in the city fifteen homeopathic physicians, 



— 36 — 

and if one grain of each kind of medicine is sufficient for them 
all for a whole year, as affirmed, there would be one fifteenth of 
a grain to each. This is indeed a tremendous outfit for a year's 
practice ; and yet it would seem that thus booted and spurred, 
armed and equipped, these brave knights go forth to glorious 
war with the king of terrors, employ what disease he may. With 
the fifteenth part of a grain of each kind of medicine in his pocket, 
the homeopathic doctor is full} 7 prepared to practice for a full year, 
according to the showing of the committee ; and yet we are 
expected to treat the subject gravely, and be quite deferential 
to those who are the dupes of a theory thus ridiculously absurd. 

Having now completed the review of the report, we beg leave 
to bestow a few thoughts upon the "ADDENDA" at the close, 
which contains, first of all, the reports of the homeopathic physi- 
cians in Cincinnati, viz., Doctors Pulte and Ehrmann, Bauer, 
Sturm, Peck, Parks, Burnham, Hutchinson, Rehwinkle, Davis, 
Dart, and Price, twelve in all, ten of whom report about eleven 
hundred cholera patients ; but, like Doctors Pulte and Ehrmann, 
they furnish no clue to the names or residences of those who lived 
or died ; which, of course, prevents all who might be disposed to 
inquire into the accuracy of their statements from doing so, either 
with respect to the one or the other — the deaths or the cures, 
True to the types, they alledge that none were lost who might 
have been expected to recover. In other words, their cholera 
patients were all saved to whom they were called in time : And 
with this the committee appear as content as though the expec- 
tations of the public had been fully met. 

But this "addenda" reveals another startling fact, which fully 
demonstrates the want of accuracy in Doctors Pulte and Ehrmann's 
report. It seems that the cholera patients reported by all the 
other homeopathic physicians, ten in number, do not equal the 
number reported by Doctors Pulte and Ehrmann. And it is still 
more startling that Doctor Bauer, with the aid of his brother, 
only attended seventy-three cases, and fifty-four of these were 
Germans. We ask the attention of the committee themselves to 
this fact. Is it not known that he, and every other physician, 
even those least known, was busily employed during the preva- 
lence of the cholera ? How then account for the fact that Doctors 
Pulte and Ehrmann attended eleven hundred and sixteen cases, 
while Doctor Bauer and his brother attended but seventy-three? 
The answer must be, that Doctor Bauer was conscientious in 
making his report; for which we trust he will not lose his reward. 



— 37 — 

The second item in the " addenda," claiming our attention, is 
the letter of Mr. Barrett, a member of the committee, who says: 
" It is not my (his) design to appear as the advocate of Homeo- 
pathy." We suppose he is sincere in this ; but really, it is diffi- 
cult to believe, after reading his letter, from which we extract the 
following as a specimen, and from which it will be seen that he 
betra} T s all the feeling the warmest advocate of Homeopathy 
could be expected to exhibit. In replying to an extract which at- 
tributed the mortality among the Germans to the fact that they 
depended chiefly upon homeopathic practice, and the practice of 
foreigners (a fact which we believe), he says : "I could hardly 
refrain from a burst of indignant feeling on reading the extract 
above referred to ; for I felt that it may (might) mislead the in- 
habitants of the eastern cities, and prevent many from knowing 
the blessings of Homeopathy," etc. Now this, we assure our rea- 
ders, is in perfect keeping with his whole letter, from first to last ; 
and yet, he declares, " it is not his wish to appear as the advocate of 
Homeopathy." Comment is unnecessary, as no man can respect 
declarations like this, with such outbursts of zeal before his 
eyes, in the advocacy of the very thing which he declares he has 
no wish " to advocate." Nor is this all. He gives the most ex- 
aggerated report of the success of Homeopathy which we have 
ever seen from the pen even of those who " did wish to advo- 
cate" its claims — the report of Drs. Pulte and Ehrmann not ex- 
cepted. Hear him ! He says : " There are, in his pastoral charge, 
in all, one hundred and four families, eighty-six of whom relied 
upon Homeopathy; that one hundred and sixty of these had 
the cholera, and were all cured but one, who was past recovery 
when the doctor arrived." Could any thing be more extravagant 
than this ? Or any thing harder to believe than that out of 
eighty-six families one hundred and sixty had the cholera, and 
that all but one were cured? 

In the congregation to which we belong, numbering considera- 
bly more than that of which he has charge, there were but ten 
cases, so far as we have been able to ascertain, and, therefore, we 
are totally at a loss to assign a reason for the difference in the 
number of cases in the two congregations. And while we have no 
wish to charge Mr. Barrett with false representations, we are 
really unable to account for the peculiar predisposition of his peo- 
ple to cholera, or the predilections of the disease for his people — 
and yet, if his report be true, this angel of death was, in some 
way, peculiarly interested with Mr. Barrett's congregation. In 



— 38 — 

the city, and the bounds of the city practice, there are at 
a fair calculation one hundred and fifty thousand people ; 
and if one third of all these had the cholera, as in the con- 
gregation of this gentleman, it would prove conclusively that fif- 
ty thousand had the disease, or that the epidemic did not prevail 
among others as it did among our Swedenborgian brethren, under 
the care of Mr. Barrett. Moreover, it will be seen from this calcu- 
lation, that after all, the homeopathic doctors attended but a very 
small number of those who had the disease, extravagant as their 
report appeared, because the whole twelve only treated in all, 
according to the showing of the committee, twenty-four hundred 
and ten cases, leaving still nearly forty-eight thousand to the 
treatment of others ; and yet these gentlemen have almost filled 
the world with their reports of success, while all the others, with 
a few exceptions, have been silent. How, then, can it be said by 
the committee that " Homeopathy has been quiet and unobtrusive ? " 
And how can Mr. Barrett affirm that he " does not wish to appear 
as the advocate of Homeopathy?" We leave our readers to judge 
for themselves, and answer these questions as best they may, 
without involving the veracity of the one or the other. 

Now, if the above calculation, which is based upon the state- 
ment of Mr. Barrett, be correct, it shows, conclusively, that the 
mortality attending the treatment of the remaining forty-eight 
thousand, was still less than that attending the practice of the 
Homeopathists, as exhibited in the report of the committee. But, 
unfortunately, neither the one nor the other can boast of results 
like this. The number of deaths from cholera amounted, in all, 
we believe, to about seven thousand. The regular profession, we 
have ascertained, with some degree of accuracy, lost, in all, about 
twelve hundred cases, which still leaves five thousand eight hun- 
dred deaths to be accounted for. AVho, then, are responsible for 
these? The Indian and Negro Doctors have published their dis- 
claimers; the Homeopathists have washed their hands in inno- 
cence. One hundred and fifty regulars lost but about twelve 
hundred cases, and, of course, the Steamers, and Eclectics, would 
naturally be expected to answer for the balance, were it not a 
well-attested fact, that those who died were chiefly Germans, who 
did not employ American physicians. 

Who then, we repeat, are accountable for the thousands above 
alluded to? The fact that they were principally Germans, and 
that nearly all the German practitioners are Homeopathists, will 
furnish a clue to the answer. 



— 39 — 

In conclusion, we invite the attention of the reader to a sum- 
ming up of the evidence, in support of the several charges urged 
against Doctors Pulte and Ehrmann, by the editor of the Exposi- 
tor, viz : — 

I. That they were guilty of exaggeration, in reporting eleven 
hundred and sixteen cases of cholera, and but two deaths, among 
their American patients, numbering in all four hundred and sev- 
enty-four. We have argued — ■ 

First. That it was not possible for them to have attended the 
number specified, even, without the addition of the thirteen hun- 
dred and fifty cases of mixed character, of which they speak, and 
the other cases referred to ; in their report all of which, according 
to a previous calculation, would have required of them nearly fif- 
teen thousand visits in ninety days. 

Second. We have shown that the sale of cholera preventives, 
by these gentlemen, in their office, with attention to obstetrical 
practice and other professional business, must have employed 
about one third of all their time ; which would have reduced it (for 
attending upon the cases above specified) to about two months, 
making the enormous sum total of something like fifteen thousand 
visits in sixty days. 

Third. We have shown that ten other homeopathic physicians, 
as exhibited in the committee's report, do not equal, in all, the 
number reported by these two gentlemen, although each and all 
of them were, probably, as busily employed as they ; which proves 
conclusively that no reliance can be placed upon their repre- 
sentations. 

Fifth. We have proved, by the report of the committee themselves, 
not by open concessions, but by admissions, that seven out of the 
nine Americans, named by the Expositor, died in their hands, 
which affords proof positive that the bulletin of Drs. Pulte and 
Ehrmann was at fault on the score of truthfulness. 

Sixth. We have shown that the method adopted by the com- 
mittee for the investigation of the subject, was strictly ex parte; and 
that their report, at least, in part, was founded upon the statements 
of Drs. Pulte and Ehrmann themselves, and that it is not, there- 
fore, entitled to as high a consideration as the showing of the Expos- 
itor, which was predicated of statements made by disinterested 
persons, who were cognizant of the facts they related. 

Seventh. We have shown in the preceding pages, that prior to 
the issuing of this report of the committee, nine new American 
cases, with names and residences, were announced through the 



— 40 — 

Commercial, as having died in their hands, against which the com- 
mittee have not opposed even a naked denial. Add to these, three 
which have since been reported to us on reliable authority, and it 
will be seen that nineteen Americans, instead of two, were lost by 
Drs. Palte and Ehrmann daring the late epidemic, with from fifty 
to sixty Germans, instead of thirty-three, as reported in their 
bulletin. It is possible, we admit, that they may not have in- 
tended to deceive, but that the facts are in contradiction of 
their statements is absolutely certain ; and that the committee 
were at fault in their manner of investigation, is not less true. 

II. It was charged by the Expositor, that Homeopathists used 
allopathic remedies in the treatment of the cholera, giving cam- 
phor in full doses, and other medicines not in harmony with the 
doctrines of the founder of the system, such as cupram, secale, 
cornutum, etc., neither of which, in moderate, or even " large 
doses," are capable of producing symptoms analogous to the dis- 
ease. In support of this charge it is argued — 

First. That Hahnemann, in testing the homeopathic action of 
different medicines, resorted to the use of even smaller doses than 
those employed by the regular profession, such as one grain of 
quinine three times a day. 

Second. That the committee adopt " large doses " of medicine to 
elucidate the same proposition, " similia si?nilibus curantur" while 
in fact, they predicate their reasoning of " POISONOUS, OR 
IMMODERATE DOSES," as evinced by their appeal to the 
United States Dispensatory, in proof of their assumption, 
that camphor was a homeopathic remedy for the cholera, 
because, in « IMMODERATE DOSES," it produced some of the 
symptoms of that disease, which shows clearly, that they, in 
reaching their conclusion, not only abandoned the rule adopted 
by Hahnemann, but that they also abandoned the rule adopted 
by themselves; and even then, it is apparent that neither camphor 
nor the other medicines used by Homeopathists, are homeopathic 
remedies for cholera. 

And finally, we have proved, by authority which cannot be 
disputed, that Hahnemann was not the first to recommend cam- 
phor for the cure of cholera, as affirmed by the committee, but 
that it had been used by the regular profession for the treatment 
of that disease in India, some eleven years prior to the time 
specified in their report, and hence, we have sustained every 
charge urged by the Expositor against Drs. Pulte and Ehrmann, 
with respect to every point, both great and small. 

[Error — Page 32, 13th line from top, for Vol. x, read Vol. xvi.] 






>WV V 



S66SS8^ ^y^^ 



;W yv v 









>Ctfvvy»v 



mfafttk k - 






v.vvv w Cvw v, »wuW'W 









vWW v 



^y 



^WWu^WV 



iVVWW'j 1 






W^SKOS" 



-'-.-.. iw^yMSu* 



wMWb/, v y^ v 



WW 



m^^^mM^ 



"Pi«^ » 



i -Hi , ., ml Jw W o'J\J\ J\J\ i\J 









Mjyy 









pi^^ 






vV vv v v 









IMjW^^vi 



■7Wv 



gg&yfw 






^^i^|»|i^« 


















Vw^v^wwOvVvvvv 






W^Mti 



^^.'WvMS^iyw 









iw¥if 






mmmiMM 






v v 









)TO 



W^O' 



«M& 



yv*v: 



mm^Wim, 



m&mwwm 






«#£»* 



H j£ 1 8 h y W-5s ; 



ii^^lS^Si 



■^.^ 



yjwiWu 



^wyw^w'wyyv^:^ 






